posted by BH
In an interview Wednesday night, Michael Vick talked about, among other things, the problems his brother had at Virginia Tech. I know they are brothers and there's a bit of a bond there, but come on. There's a difference between sticking by Marcus no matter what and defending him to the far reaches of crazy world.
Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick believes Virginia Tech overreacted when the school dismissed his brother, Marcus, from the football team after he stomped on an opposing player during the Gator Bowl.
Either Michael's wrong for thinking this, or the writer's wrong for writing it. Virginia Tech dismissed Marcus because he had been on a zero tolerance probation since 2004. Those were the days when he was giving underage girls alcohol and facing other legal, uh, challenges. The point is, VT didn't dismiss Marcus because he stomped on a player's leg. That was simply the last straw and violated the whole idea of zero tolerance.
"Sometimes your emotions just take over," Michael Vick said during halftime Wednesday night of the Atlanta Hawks' game against the Cleveland Cavaliers. "I know Marcus. He's not the kind of kid that's going to do something like that on purpose. That's just something he's got to live with, and now it's just time to move on."
Now, I know I have some shortcomings but it seemed that what Marcus Vick did to Elvis Dumerville was the very meaning of "on purpose." This idea that his emotions took over, somehow absolving what Marcus did is crazy. Everyone uses adrenaline on the football field. Everyone experiences emotion. Most to all athletes are capable of handling it.
Earlier this month, just three days after being kicked off the football team, Vick was arrested and charged with pulling a gun on three teenagers in Virginia.
Michael said he believes Marcus will be exonerated.
"No, I ain't mad," Michael Vick said. "He didn't do anything wrong. The world will all know when the truth comes out."
"He didn't do anything wrong." Hmm. Again, I'm just simple folk, but what he did was the essence of wrong. If a company wanted to sell wrong in a bottle, customers would be buying Marcus Vick pulling a gun on some teenagers. And why this future date when the truth can come out? Why not now? Why can't the world know now why either a) Marcus is innocent, b) Marcus was justified, or c) some made up crazy explanation?
Posts
1 comment:
Go Monarchs
Gene Wojciechowski wrote a peice a few weeks back in which he encouraged everyone to avoid judging Maurice Clarett and Marcus Vick. His main argument had to do with the guys having grown up in bad situations. There are several problems with this whole idea, but a big issue is that Michael Vick grew up in the same environment and has avoided pulling a gun on someone or stomping on a competitor's leg. There is some spoiled in there. Wojciechowski went to far as to blame Michael a little for giving his brother an Escalade before Marcus's freshman year at VT.
Post a Comment